I don’t really think there is any way in which the adjective “terrible” would be an appropriate use of the word here. Also note the low numbers involved here, the different contexts and the plain arbitrariness of such comparisons. One failure more or less can make a world of difference here, despite maybe not being the most reliable indicator.
94% is about the long term ballpark figure for successful orbital launches but it is true that some newer rocket families may have ever so slightly higher reliabilities.
Atlas, Ariane and proton have fifty+ years of investment tail behind them and a fifth generation in atlas is probably more than musk has had in spacex in generation terms no?
51 launches
48 completely successful
49 partially successful
94% success rate (complete success)
96% success rate (partial success)
Ariane 5
97 launches
92 completely successful
95 partially successful
95% success rate (complete success)
98% success rate (partial success)
Atlas V
76 launches
75 completely successful
76 partially successful
99% success rate (complete success)
100% success rate (partial success)
Delta IV (including Heavy)
36 launches
35 completely successful
36 partially successful
97% success rate (complete success)
100% success rate (partial success)
Proton (since 2010 as an arbitrary cutoff)
65 launches
58 completely successful
59 partially successful
89% success rate (complete success)
91% success rate (partial success)
I don’t really think there is any way in which the adjective “terrible” would be an appropriate use of the word here. Also note the low numbers involved here, the different contexts and the plain arbitrariness of such comparisons. One failure more or less can make a world of difference here, despite maybe not being the most reliable indicator.
94% is about the long term ballpark figure for successful orbital launches but it is true that some newer rocket families may have ever so slightly higher reliabilities.